To think people need to be released from the idea that they must 'stay safe'?

[TheDailyCarbuncle]

IMO people's heads have been messed with on an absolutely massive scale during this pandemic. So many people seem to be locked into the idea that they absolutely must avoid getting covid at all costs, no matter what, to the extent that they're convinced that if they don't do everything possible to 'stay safe' then they're definitely going to die.

I genuinely think that the extent to which governments around the world have convinced people that the only thing that matters is this virus is a far far far bigger problem than the virus itself. I think governments are too cowardly to say what needs to be said, which is that there is no way to prevent everyone from getting it, and that attempting to prevent it is causing so many other problems that it just can't be done any more.

I think people are being driven around the twist with the idea that this threat is out there, lurking at all times, waiting to get them. It's like a form of mental torture, with people questioning everything and worrying about everything, while the economy crumbles around them.

There is no guarantee of a vaccine or of more effective treatments. There is every chance that covid will still be circulating, along with every other virus, in 2030. You could do everything absolutely 'right' now and still get it next year or in five years.

I get the fact that it was new, unprecedented, etc. But where do we draw the line? When will the acceptance come? When it's too late and there's no way to restore the millions of jobs lost? When economies have collapsed so much that poverty, violence and starvation make covid look like a walk in the park?

I am genuinely puzzled by the 'eradication' idea in Scotland. Do they mean that they're aiming for zero cases for a while? Or zero cases forever? How is that even possible unless the borders are permanently closed and no one is allowed in or out?

Because airborn virus particles so small they are invisiable to the naked eye can't pass over invisible border lines. There will be a ban with fines being issued to people living in border towns for coughing and sneezing within close proximty of the border line

@TheDailyCarbuncle
I think I actually love you I agree with you word for word. I am a 'shielded' person who has definitely not shielded as I would rather take my tiny risk than live a miserable life.

We cannot eradicate the virus. We need to move on..

Totally agree. A woman I work with has basically decided that if she steps foot outside she will die from covid - this is a sane rational woman!

I know lots of people who are terrified of catching covid, despite the fact lockdown was never intended to stop people catching it, just slow the spread.

We need to return to normality, there are so many risks we face every single day - but we don't lock ourselves away like this!

YANBU. Honestly the nanny state hysteria is doing my head in too.

@QueenBlueberries

I am generally not impressed with that 'I'm alright Jack' mentality. I know that statistically, I am likely to be OK if I get Covid 19 because of my age and general health. But what worries me the most is not catching it; it's passing it on to others.

What is guiding me to be cautious, to wear a mask in shops and on public transport, to be very anxious about pubs opening up, is not because I am scared of catching it myself.

I am worried about other people, those who have been shielding, the elderly, the most vulnerable in our society, catching it and dying from it.

The higher the number of cases in the overall population, the higher the death rate. We have not managed as a society to protect the most vulnerable of our society. That's a fact.

So I am one of those you probably call stupid for being worried. But I am not worried about myself, I am worried about others. Is it really that hard to understand?

I'm not calling anyone stupid. I'm saying you should be released from the idea that it's your duty to protect other people from a risk that you're not deliberately creating. Unless you're particularly evil, you're never going to deliberately infect anyone. The fact that in going about your normal life you could catch and spread an illness is not a personal failing of yours, it's just a fact of being human. It's worth worrying about others but at a certain point you really have to draw the line and say 'I understand there's a risk but I trying to avoid every bit of that risk isn't possible.'

And if you are worried about other people does that worry extend to people who will lose their homes? The people who will descend deeper into poverty as a result of the massive depression we're falling into?

I think YABU

But will be ready tomchange my mind once we've seen what the cool/damp winter - traditional virus season - has been like.

I think after that we shall have a considerably better idea of whether we shall be able to conquer the disease (treatment or vaccination) or if we are going to need to learn to live with it. What we learn between now and then, from local lockdowns and other steps to quash flare ups, will also make an enormous difference to how we cope.

And also give time to work out what society will do to ensure the wellbeing of everyone, including the vulnerable, the exceptionally vulnerable (whom can be any age), the BAME community and the pregnant

@TheDailyCarbuncle

I am genuinely puzzled by the 'eradication' idea in Scotland. Do they mean that they're aiming for zero cases for a while? Or zero cases forever? How is that even possible unless the borders are permanently closed and no one is allowed in or out?

That's really going to complicate cattle rustling.

It's likely that if there's a vaccine it'll only be offered to vulnerable people - funding the distribution of a vaccine on a large scale for a virus that doesn't kill most of the people it infects won't be economically viable.

Given that this virus has had an economic impact like no other, and that vaccines are routinely given for less dangerous illnesses, of course it will be offered, in time, to the whole population. Even if you’re of the view it’s only a mild form of flu it would be a no-brainer.

Totally right OP the effect of this pandemic spreads far wider than the deaths reported. Peoples mental health are in tatters, thousands are losing their jobs daily, children are without education, many social care services are cut, theres violence erupting in our streets for any reason that suits. It seems nothing matters more at the moment than Covid. Whilst it's awful that thousands have died or are suffering the long term effects of this horrendous virus theres millions suffering from poverty, mental health problems, abuse, homelessness as an indirect result yet no one wants to talk about that. We should all stay home whilst the world around us literally crumbles before our eyes.
I was told early into lockdown I was being made redundant my husband is self employed in construction (indoors). For me the threat of losing my home and not being able to feed my DC is far higher than catching/spreading or dying from Covid so forgive me for being desperate for the economy to reboot and the world continue to turn

Yes, I would be interested to see the source of the OP's theory that a Covid vaccine would only be offered to the vulnerable. Surely this would incite massive popular rage; and as you say, @Derbygerbil, the economic cost so far means that vaccinating everyone would be a no-brainer.

@Derbygerbil

It's likely that if there's a vaccine it'll only be offered to vulnerable people - funding the distribution of a vaccine on a large scale for a virus that doesn't kill most of the people it infects won't be economically viable.

Given that this virus has had an economic impact like no other, and that vaccines are routinely given for less dangerous illnesses, of course it will be offered, in time, to the whole population. Even if you’re of the view it’s only a mild form of flu it would be a no-brainer.

It's had an economic impact due to lockdown, not due to the virus itself. There is a lot of evidence to indicate that a very very high percentage of people infected with covid - up to 70% - experience no symptoms or symptoms so mild they get over them in a couple of days. Vaccinating people against that wouldn't ever make economic sense. It may make sense to vaccinate people in at-risk groups. My expectation is that funding for developing a vaccine will dry up before anything is actually developed and in five years time covid will be one of the many viruses routinely catch.

Have you lost anyone close to you, OP?

If you have you must be pretty cold to take that attitude.

Sorry that should say 'one of the many viruses people routinely catch'

Please explain why the economically-driven US - states like California, Texas, Florida - are locking down again as we speak?Closing bars, restaurants, gyms, shortly after reopening? Why New York is choosing not to go ahead with the planned reopening of its indoor restaurants on Monday?

Is it really because they enjoy the economic havoc wreaked by lockdown? Or because the alternative is worse?

Perhaps OP can advise them to correct the error of their ways?

@agentnully

Have you lost anyone close to you, OP?

If you have you must be pretty cold to take that attitude.

I have lost people close to me. One to the coldsore virus (Herpes Simplex) which crossed the blood brain barrier, infected her brain and killed her over the course of five long years. A school friend when I was a child died of meningitis. And my grandmother died of sepsis from a urinary tract infection.

The fact that people die from things doesn't make wanting to live my life 'cold.' It makes me a person that accepts that it's not possible to remove every risk from life and that massively increasing other risks from tanking the world economy in order to decrease one particular risk does not make sense.

Do you expect people to be protected from catching covid for the rest of their lives? As in, do you expect that no matter what it takes- abject poverty, starvation, whatever, there is no point at which you'll accept that covid is a virus going around in the population that it's not possible to avoid forever more?

We need people to feel safe but to feel safe because infection rates are low, not because they don't care whether or not they catch the virus.

If infection rates are high, that will trash the economy, hospitals will start to fill up with covid patients again and normal healthcare and education will be interrupted again.

Be careful wishing for people not to care about staying safe any more, because if too many people do that and relax their precautions, infection rates will go back up again. High infection rates are bad for everyone, not just vulnerable people who might be more likely to die.

It's had an economic impact due to lockdown, not due to the virus itself.

Because lockdown interrupted the process that would lead to the worst direct impact of the virus.

@eeeyoresmiles

We need people to feel safe but to feel safe because infection rates are low, not because they don't care whether or not they catch the virus.

If infection rates are high, that will trash the economy, hospitals will start to fill up with covid patients again and normal healthcare and education will be interrupted again.

Be careful wishing for people not to care about staying safe any more, because if too many people do that and relax their precautions, infection rates will go back up again. High infection rates are bad for everyone, not just vulnerable people who might be more likely to die.

You say 'if infection rates are high, that will trash the economy' but infection rates are low currently and the economy is trashed. And at some point that trashing of the economy will just not be possible to sustain any more - it is just not possible to prevent people from working and getting an education and expect the country not to grind entirely to a halt. So the question is, when will that point come? When the damage is so complete that there's no coming back from it? When it doesn't matter whether anyone has covid or not, the death rate is shooting up due to poverty?

It's one thing to accept a stable, long term background risk of illnesses such as measles, sepsis etc. It's quite another thing to accept the risk of exponential growth of a new poorly understood illness throughout a whole population, rather than trying to keep infection rates low. That's just playing with fire.

Jesus Christ OP

You are probably presenting the most articulate and sensible argument I’ve read on here this year regards the non viral effects of COVID19 on the population (fracturing of societal norms, mental health epidemic, fundamentally changing behaviours for what end).

Just out of interest are you in Scotland?

I only ask as I’ve seen so many folk on SM say “not for us thanks, it’s too early, we’ve chosen to stay away until it’s over” about taking their kids to the playpark.

I mean - LOADS

@Lweji

It's had an economic impact due to lockdown, not due to the virus itself.

Because lockdown interrupted the process that would lead to the worst direct impact of the virus.

According to NHS data, the peak of the virus was on April 8th, meaning that measures introduced before lockdown - restriction of large events, handwashing advice, advice to isolate - had a major effect on infections without any lockdown. Sweden has had measures to contain the virus but no lockdown in the way other countries of have had it. And yes you're going to say that Sweden is different blah blah blah but Stockholm is a typical city like any European city and at no point did they have overwhelmed hospitals or any of the predicted disaster. Everyone seems to just avoid talking about Sweden for some reason - is it because it shows up just how pointless stopping everyone's lives is?

Regardless, my point is that there has to be a point at which it becomes obvious that it is never going to be possible to ensure nobody ever catches covid. In fact that actual aim of the lockdown wasn't to prevent people from catching covid, it was to slow the spread and that was achieved. So how long does this idea that life has to be stopped go on for?

@eeeyoresmiles

It's one thing to accept a stable, long term background risk of illnesses such as measles, sepsis etc. It's quite another thing to accept the risk of exponential growth of a new poorly understood illness throughout a whole population, rather than trying to keep infection rates low. That's just playing with fire.

So is the 'fire' caused by trashing the economy nothing to worry about then? 12,000 jobs were lost in the UK in the last two days. Twelve thousand - that's 12,000 people without an income in just two days. And that's before you start counting the huge knock-on effect that those job losses will have on other jobs, leading to more and more layoffs. And that's just the start of it.

@AdultFishcakes

Jesus Christ OP

You are probably presenting the most articulate and sensible argument I’ve read on here this year regards the non viral effects of COVID19 on the population (fracturing of societal norms, mental health epidemic, fundamentally changing behaviours for what end).

Just out of interest are you in Scotland?

I only ask as I’ve seen so many folk on SM say “not for us thanks, it’s too early, we’ve chosen to stay away until it’s over” about taking their kids to the playpark.

I mean - LOADS

No, I'm in England.

You say 'if infection rates are high, that will trash the economy' but infection rates are low currently and the economy is trashed.

The economy is trashed now because of emergency measures we had to take because infection rates were high. We can't afford to have to keep taking measures like lockdowns. But go round telling people they shouldn't care if they catch or spread the virus, and that's what we'll have to do.

Even if you could decide not to lockdown again (and you realistically wouldn't have that choice because of the effects on hospitals etc that would mean we'd have to try to get rates down again) - in new outbreaks people won't be going out to eat, they won't be spending money, businesses will still be damaged. There isn't realistically an option just to decide not to worry about the virus and then have the economy not be affected.

Sweden has recently admitted they should have done better, particularly with regards to their elderly.
And they have suffered economically from control measures, even if due to neighbouring countries to some extent.
The UK went into lockdown because it was losing any control. Hardly any PPE, tests or tracking. Countries that performed better without lockdowns performed better at other control measures.